Verizon already slowing down Netflix...Follow

I might have mentioned it before but analogies, especially car analogies, tend to be useless, because they are open to interpretation.

Yes, but it also happens to be advertised as FIOS and since it is branded as such, it is expected to perform in the way indicated.

VZ website

Note how ,on their site, they state:

"The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

Kinda hard to do at 40kb/s.


Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:43pm by angrymnk

Fine, one swallow does not spring make and data is incomplete at this time. We can wait for more; as I am relatively certain there will be more.

Now, back to the heart of the matter, given that his tests with the rep apparently went well, should it not mean that VZ should be able to deliver over 40kb/s after 4pm?:>

Oh. I'm sure there will be a ton more of the same sorts of "doesn't actually prove what you're claiming" sort of data.



That's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is whether VZ is taking advantage of the recent net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix. I don't really care if this guy has network problems, or whether VZ is totally ******** over their customers by not giving them the bandwidth they promised. I'm responding to the claim that this is done deliberately to throttle specific remote services (like Netflix in this case).


But if you were to ask, I'd go out on a limb and guess that there's some kind of usage sensitive network problem in his area (cause yeah, 40kbs is pretty crappy). Almost certainly the result of someone flipping the wrong duplex setting on a switch somewhere. It's the kind of problem that isn't visible when total usage is "low", but when usage goes up, causes all sorts of really horrific network performance problems. VZ will figure this out in a week or so, the problem will go away, but the blogger will almost certainly never write a blog about how his network problems have been solved.

But hey, there's that whole "learning from the past" thing I've got that gives me an advantage when predicting how these things will pan out.

Sigh,



No, the regular user would not give a flying **** about net neutrality if the ISPs actually delivered on what they promised. Net neutrality is something like a political warning. If you will not start behaving, you will be regulated.

Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 10:23pm by angrymnk

I suppose those users could incorporate and become real humans; not just a mere shell of flesh and bone.. I guess people are people too. They are just worse people than corporations.

And for like the 5th time. I am not making any judgement about the quality of the network performance. Whether it's good, bad, whatever. Not the point.

I am only commenting on his claim that this must be because of Verizon taking advantage of the net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix.

How many freaking times do I have to keep saying this?

Verizon advertises no such slowdowns on their Fios product. It was sort of one of the drivers behind the fiber build-out.

Edit: This is irrespective of slowdowns caused by the distributor being overloaded, this is purely in response to the old shared loop model.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 11:57pm by Timelordwho

Hahaha I love when Gbaji talks out of his rear end.

LITERALLY 100 EXPLANATIONS!

But im not even going state one...



Edited, Feb 8th 2014 7:47pm by rdmcandie

He tested two home users in the same geographical area with the same ISP. He contrasted that to the service from a business in the same geographical area. What he didn't do was test home users with a different ISP both in the same and different geographical area. Because that would tell him if it was something localized to the home VZ network, or something unrelated.

His tests don't actually tell us anything other than that during the same time period, two different home users, in the same geographical area, and using the same ISP, had similar network performance.

Most significantly, is that he didn't perform any tests at all to other remote sites. If one were to test whether this was VZ throttling network speed from/to a single specific remote service provider, you'd think that would be the very first test you'd do. Gee. I'm getting super slow network to AWS. Let me test the bandwidth to somewhere else. If it's slow *everywhere* then we can conclude that his internet speed sucks, but that it has nothing to do with targeted throttling.

But he didn't do that test, did he?



I could spend a significant amount of post time explaining how various internet companies do actually respect the others business agreements and pass them along (for a fee, of course), but it's a far more complex subject than you probably want to read about. However, in this case it's probably not necessary as the most likely explanation is that VZ prioritizes the traffic of their business accounts. Again, the red herring here is the assumption that this has anything at all to do with VZ to AWS. That's the connection he tested. But, as I pointed out earlier, he failed to test to anywhere else, so we have no way to know if his claim about throttling by VZ of traffic from/to AWS is true.



Again though, that's not the question. He showed that the VZ business account got better performance than a VZ home account. To which most sane people would respond with "duh!'. The difference in the time it takes google to load up on my computer at home versus here at work is massive and very noticeable, yet I've never once concluded that this means that my home ISP must be throttling google.




Uh... Which is meaningless (and honestly a waste of money). I can wire direct fiber to 1000 homes, and plug them all into one set of switches, and guess what? They're not going to get any more performance out of their fiber than they would have with cat5. What matters is not the bandwidth of the wire from your house to the switch, but how many homes are wired into the same cloud of switches and routers before they fork into a backbone. Well, that and a host of considerations based on the layout of said cloud, of course, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

Having "direct fiber to your home" is the latest marketing scheme, but doesn't at all guarantee any increase in real connection speed to the internet as a whole. Oh. And you do get that the term "last mile" doesn't actually refer to a physical mile of distance, right? Also, it's not "dedicated last mile" at all. If it were, we'd be talking about wiring fiber directly from just your home right into the providers backbone. No one does that. Not for home users, at least, because it's massively expensive. Home users are clustered into a local switch cloud, which ultimately pipes into their backbone, but it's always going to be a balance between the cost of providing the pipe and the number of subscribers in the area.


Um... They do do this for business users, if they pay enough money, or sometime just because of where they are located. There's usually a much higher bandwidth capability and fewer bottlenecks between the physical wires laid out to commercial parks than to housing areas. If your business is in a commercial area with a ton of other businesses which have paid over time to have very fat pipe running right next to their offices, even the cheapest business account in that physical location will get excellent performance relative to a home user.

Edited, Feb 12th 2014 6:32pm by gbaji

Just because I didn't see it posted here. Or if it was, it was posted buried in something I wasn't going to read. In that case, here's my +1.

Yup, but you can usually mention something like "scientists are paid by the government" and we all get to go back to name calling and posturing.

What happens with networks is precisely what happens with road systems. It doesn't matter how wide your street is from your house to the freeway, or how many streets there are, or even if we run a separate street from each persons house to the freeway. The bottleneck will always be the onramp that you and all the folks traveling along all the roads leading to that onramp all have to share. You're doing the equivalent of wondering why it takes you an hour to commute to work since you paid for a really wide driveway. Um... It's not the driveway that's the problem.

Yeah, again, no. Bandwidth costs virtually nothing, maintaining fiber costs virtually nothing. You can run it 100 miles to the CO and plug it into a blade in a backbone switch without any additional overhead. Verizon is a Tier 1 carrier, they have no incentive to oversubscribe FIOS, and really given the economics, it'd be hard for them to even manage it. I guess they could intentionally degrade end user connections for absolutely no reason, but, amazingly they don't. Fiber goes from my ONT to a passive splitter to the CO, to a backbone switch. That's it. Why so simple? Because it's not fucking copper. Because there doesn't need to be an elaborate system of repeaters overlaid on existing analog infrastructure to support it. There's no trunk involved, you just plug it in.

It's amazing how little you actually seem to understand about ANYTHING, What the **** you actually do for a living, install MS Office?